How do we avoid being a renters economy. I am totally in agreement with the treatment of resources as finite as they are, but how do we avoid a society that must pay a monthly fee for everything and becoming more dependent on lease terms and permanent payment schemes. We are nostalgic for paying for durable value once, are we going to exchange it for contracts and consumption thats on the business terms that could trigger fees, lower credit scores if I forget to pay for my microwave?
I wish you all the best in bringing companies together and making your dream a reality. A Circular economy is the only way forward in the 21st century.
I believe this "circular economy" can only go so far before people desire ownership once again. I've toiled with this concept for some time now and I believe there are other ways for businesses to retain ownership of materials while still granting consumers ownership of their products. I'm familiar with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and I hope this novel idea doesn't turn out to be an effort to be paid large sums to redefine the modus operandi of any given company.
Outstanding! A perfect "AH HAH!" illumination. This remarkable animation accomplishes with exceptional clarity in little more than 3 minutes the distillation of a library full of books and journals on this important concept. It deserves widespread viewing, motivating viewers to delve deeper into the case studies and opportunities.
Not a new idea - but an idea whose time has come. The opportunities for innovation, jobs and growth are there for those companies with vision. Anne Finnane, Global to Local
There is growing evidence that ever-increasing economic growth in wealthy countries is neither environmentally sustainable nor socially beneficial, yet the pursuit of ever-escalating production and consumption remains the mantra of our age.A Steady State Economy,maintaining a stable level of production rather than maximising output, has been proposed as an alternative; but the external constraints to achieving this are formidable, and the knock-on effects for global poverty could be devastating
Gr8 film. I only buy products that have an extendable guarantee, preferably 5 years. Those products are usefully well made and if there is a problem they fix it! Why we throw so many items always is ecologically crazy to understand and should stop ASAP 👍
This video presents an interesting proposition. However, it takes away from the concept of ownership entirely which could cause problems for motivational factors within social responsibility initiatives. I appreciate the process that the Global Reporting Initiative which recommends working with stakeholder groups to create a balance between social, environmental, and economic needs. If one pillar of sustainability is stronger than the rest sustainability will not occur.
Most people want to own an item instead of renting, it it looked at as ongoing debt and with costs of living, no one wanting on going debt. I believe that manufacturers should incentivise possibly their retailers to re-cycle broken down appliances etc
If we are to live in a sustainable world this will be at the heart of how we use materials and access services. There's a great Masters program (Master's Program in Sustainable Product-Service System Innovation at BTH in Sweden (Google it) that explores this fully (applications for 2013 intake close 15th Jan!)
I think you make some good points here ragdollrustybeds, but unfortunately this is not a perfect closed loop. It will merely delay our running out of resources.
Rather a dystopian video and has not much to do with sustainability. The only way it differs from the current economy is single ownership - instead of many people owning many things it would be mega corporations owning the same things and there is no way it guarantees a more sustainable approach (quoting the video 1:44 "frequent upgrades"). I see it not as a solution but as an even bigger risk for poverty.
Where's the guarantee that companies actually reuse (which is highly preferable over recycle, in term of lowering energy requirements) the materials and parts. Renting a house doesn't make that house any more circular in construction than buying one. I prefer to own my fridge over just renting it, but I would like a long term contract in which the producer promises to repair (and if possible upgrade, for things like higher energetic efficiency) during my ownership. A car, that's a completely different story. Owning a car makes little sense, unless you are a taxi driver, delivery person, or similar. But then again, I prefer not to have a contract with just 1 company, for my car usage. I prefer having an app on my phone, where I can select transportation (could be something else than just a car) from a variety of companies. If I have a contract with company A, but company B happens to have a free vehicle nearby (while A's vehicle is a ten minute walk away), my contract wouldn't serve me very well, would it?
I like the idea, but I do think there is a very real political danger in a world where a set of corporations legally owns a critical amount of what was once personal belongings, as that could lead to the creation of something along the lines of company towns.
I have grave reservations concerning this. Conceptually, this is an idiology which has been around for centuries. Star Trek, Back to the Future, all were set in a circular economy. But human nature has evolved two-fold, with 1/2 of the populations believing and working toward just such a utopian society. The other half is just the opposite and are driven solely by greed. This chasim grows ever wider between the two factions in our society daily. This is a recipe for complete disaster.
This circular economy idea sounds like a lot of bs to me. It's a big waste of time and money, that could otherwise be spend solving far more important issues, such as poverty.
You solve the problem of poverty by allowing people to SAVE their own money instead of buying outrageously the sort of things that they later want to "get rid of" but nevertheless end up throwing in the streets. When you are leasing a product, you can pass the lease onto someone else on the other side of the planet. This means that, instead of physically "donating" clothes, appliances, etc + the incurred cost of transportation to people in need somewhere in the Pacific, you allow them to access services right from their door steps. Result: no waiting in time for access, no geographical constraints, reduced opportunities for a corrupted middle(wo)man. This gain of time is crucial, because people often fall into poverty (homelessness, sickness, disability, etc) because by the time the tips/aid/treatments they need reach them it is too late.
This is very misleading. Under this system, the consumer likely enters into a contract in order to use these products. The price of that contract is relative to the treatment of that product by the mass majority of consumers-- there is no way that such a contract would reflect reasonable pricing for services. This idea is in opposition to the idea of having any sort of property at all-- I can't believe that this is a good idea in the manner in which it is presented.
The idea that moving to a leasing model would somehow drive what is essentially just recycling is nearly as absurd as the idea of a "local person to person car sharing network". Does the car drive itself back to my place after you drive it to work, or are you going to beam it up, Scotty? Idiots.
You mean paying others to drive you around, a taxi service. Nothing new or fantastic about any of those services. Nothing efficient about them either - the mileage from base to pickup point then from drop off point to base (or next pickup) is competely wasted energy and wear. Incidentally most uber drivers are undercharging for not taking into account wear and tear and depreciation of their primary business asset. The model will collapse.
+Jaiissica When the company still owns the machine etc. it means that the machine is still an asset for them, which means that they have incentive to take care of the recycling. They know exactly what it's made of and because they still own it they would have incentive to come up with ways to best recycle/reuse it. Calling it JUST RECYCLING doesn't make much sense since we the consumers are really bad at it. Why? Because we don't have incentives for it.
actually, soon a car might just do exactly that (drive itself)... www.techworld.com/picture-gallery/big-data/-companies-working-on-driverless-cars-3641537/
Service contracts would need to be written specifically enough that users would be able to maintain the quality they want. I think some of how you look at this idea is based on your experience with service providers or your outlook on life. If there is competition in the market, there will definitely be pressure to maximize user experience. If a sector that is run by one dominant provider goes to this model, I would expect user experience to get worse. In other words, like our current system, the real outcome will be dependent on whether the capital owner operates with a sense of community responsibility or with a pure profit motivation.
How do we avoid being a renters economy. I am totally in agreement with the treatment of resources as finite as they are, but how do we avoid a society that must pay a monthly fee for everything and becoming more dependent on lease terms and permanent payment schemes. We are nostalgic for paying for durable value once, are we going to exchange it for contracts and consumption thats on the business terms that could trigger fees, lower credit scores if I forget to pay for my microwave?
after 11 years, how is this "renting over owning" goes?
honestly, this is the video with best animation so far I have seen on this topic !! Respect
I wish you all the best in bringing companies together and making your dream a reality. A Circular economy is the only way forward in the 21st century.
idiot. go live in north korea where everybody owns nothing. i dont want your dirty clothes in my machine. you are a communist
I believe this "circular economy" can only go so far before people desire ownership once again. I've toiled with this concept for some time now and I believe there are other ways for businesses to retain ownership of materials while still granting consumers ownership of their products. I'm familiar with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and I hope this novel idea doesn't turn out to be an effort to be paid large sums to redefine the modus operandi of any given company.
after 11 years, how is this "renting over owning" goes?
Outstanding! A perfect "AH HAH!" illumination. This remarkable animation accomplishes with exceptional clarity in little more than 3 minutes the distillation of a library full of books and journals on this important concept. It deserves widespread viewing, motivating viewers to delve deeper into the case studies and opportunities.
Not a new idea - but an idea whose time has come. The opportunities for innovation, jobs and growth are there for those companies with vision. Anne Finnane, Global to Local
There is growing evidence that ever-increasing economic growth in wealthy countries is neither environmentally sustainable nor socially beneficial, yet the pursuit of ever-escalating production and consumption remains the mantra of our age.A Steady State Economy,maintaining a stable level of production rather than maximising output, has been proposed as an alternative; but the external constraints to achieving this are formidable, and the knock-on effects for global poverty could be devastating
Gr8 film. I only buy products that have an extendable guarantee, preferably 5 years. Those products are usefully well made and if there is a problem they fix it! Why we throw so many items always is ecologically crazy to understand and should stop ASAP 👍
This video presents an interesting proposition. However, it takes away from the concept of ownership entirely which could cause problems for motivational factors within social responsibility initiatives. I appreciate the process that the Global Reporting Initiative which recommends working with stakeholder groups to create a balance between social, environmental, and economic needs. If one pillar of sustainability is stronger than the rest sustainability will not occur.
it is marketing for dumb people. own nothing is communism.
Very interesting concept. Well produced. Good for group debate.
٦٦٦٦٦٦صط٥ج
Most people want to own an item instead of renting, it it looked at as ongoing debt and with costs of living, no one wanting on going debt.
I believe that manufacturers should incentivise possibly their retailers to re-cycle broken down appliances etc
this is the future.... we really forgot the basics.... resources management and production management
Obviously a fantastic ideology and one we must make happen but also, what a great film.
Very nicely made! Who made it?!
only stupid people cant see the communist brainwashing
If we are to live in a sustainable world this will be at the heart of how we use materials and access services. There's a great Masters program (Master's Program in Sustainable Product-Service System Innovation at BTH in Sweden (Google it) that explores this fully (applications for 2013 intake close 15th Jan!)
Really intresting!
Excellent thought, should materialize for sustainability..
Very active and effectively
Radio rentals failed because it was cheaper to buy stuff than rent it. As with most environmental schemes it will disadvantage the disadvantaged.
I think you make some good points here ragdollrustybeds, but unfortunately this is not a perfect closed loop. It will merely delay our running out of resources.
Hunter Lang progress is progress my guy
Really nice new material from EMF!
Love this video!
Rather a dystopian video and has not much to do with sustainability. The only way it differs from the current economy is single ownership - instead of many people owning many things it would be mega corporations owning the same things and there is no way it guarantees a more sustainable approach (quoting the video 1:44 "frequent upgrades"). I see it not as a solution but as an even bigger risk for poverty.
Animation produced by Beakus
Director Mr Binns
Sounds good to me. I never saw the point in owning so many appliances anyway just to keep getting new ones.
ii dedin kıral
Aye, I love the narrator's Scottish accent.
Regardless, we still need materials, clothes, food, bricks, cement and so it isnt a closed loop. Leading to decay of the economic system
I think most people prefer to die in their _own_ bed, not on hold trying to cancel the subscription.
the things we own, end up owning us !
Where's the guarantee that companies actually reuse (which is highly preferable over recycle, in term of lowering energy requirements) the materials and parts. Renting a house doesn't make that house any more circular in construction than buying one. I prefer to own my fridge over just renting it, but I would like a long term contract in which the producer promises to repair (and if possible upgrade, for things like higher energetic efficiency) during my ownership.
A car, that's a completely different story. Owning a car makes little sense, unless you are a taxi driver, delivery person, or similar. But then again, I prefer not to have a contract with just 1 company, for my car usage. I prefer having an app on my phone, where I can select transportation (could be something else than just a car) from a variety of companies. If I have a contract with company A, but company B happens to have a free vehicle nearby (while A's vehicle is a ten minute walk away), my contract wouldn't serve me very well, would it?
I like the idea, but I do think there is a very real political danger in a world where a set of corporations legally owns a critical amount of what was once personal belongings, as that could lead to the creation of something along the lines of company towns.
Yeah, products as a service sucks, also they dont care if they have to buy new products as long as we pay the final bill
I have grave reservations concerning this. Conceptually, this is an idiology which has been around for centuries. Star Trek, Back to the Future, all were set in a circular economy.
But human nature has evolved two-fold, with 1/2 of the populations believing and working toward just such a utopian society. The other half is just the opposite and are driven solely by greed. This chasim grows ever wider between the two factions in our society daily. This is a recipe for complete disaster.
You will own nothing and be happy.
If there was profit in this companies would offer to buy back their dammaged products.
Bob the Builder - Can We Fix It? (Yes we can).
This circular economy idea sounds like a lot of bs to me. It's a big waste of time and money, that could otherwise be spend solving far more important issues, such as poverty.
You solve the problem of poverty by allowing people to SAVE their own money instead of buying outrageously the sort of things that they later want to "get rid of" but nevertheless end up throwing in the streets.
When you are leasing a product, you can pass the lease onto someone else on the other side of the planet. This means that, instead of physically "donating" clothes, appliances, etc + the incurred cost of transportation to people in need somewhere in the Pacific, you allow them to access services right from their door steps.
Result: no waiting in time for access, no geographical constraints, reduced opportunities for a corrupted middle(wo)man. This gain of time is crucial, because people often fall into poverty (homelessness, sickness, disability, etc) because by the time the tips/aid/treatments they need reach them it is too late.
Wouldn’t it stifle innovation?
This is very misleading.
Under this system, the consumer likely enters into a contract in order to use these products. The price of that contract is relative to the treatment of that product by the mass majority of consumers-- there is no way that such a contract would reflect reasonable pricing for services.
This idea is in opposition to the idea of having any sort of property at all-- I can't believe that this is a good idea in the manner in which it is presented.
"You will own nothing and you will be happy"
The idea that moving to a leasing model would somehow drive what is essentially just recycling is nearly as absurd as the idea of a "local person to person car sharing network". Does the car drive itself back to my place after you drive it to work, or are you going to beam it up, Scotty? Idiots.
Are you intentionally being sarcastic? Have you heard of Zipcar, Relayrides, Uber, or Lyft?
You mean paying others to drive you around, a taxi service. Nothing new or fantastic about any of those services. Nothing efficient about them either - the mileage from base to pickup point then from drop off point to base (or next pickup) is competely wasted energy and wear.
Incidentally most uber drivers are undercharging for not taking into account wear and tear and depreciation of their primary business asset. The model will collapse.
+Jaiissica When the company still owns the machine etc. it means that the machine is still an asset for them, which means that they have incentive to take care of the recycling. They know exactly what it's made of and because they still own it they would have incentive to come up with ways to best recycle/reuse it. Calling it JUST RECYCLING doesn't make much sense since we the consumers are really bad at it. Why? Because we don't have incentives for it.
actually, soon a car might just do exactly that (drive itself)...
www.techworld.com/picture-gallery/big-data/-companies-working-on-driverless-cars-3641537/
Service contracts would need to be written specifically enough that users would be able to maintain the quality they want. I think some of how you look at this idea is based on your experience with service providers or your outlook on life. If there is competition in the market, there will definitely be pressure to maximize user experience. If a sector that is run by one dominant provider goes to this model, I would expect user experience to get worse. In other words, like our current system, the real outcome will be dependent on whether the capital owner operates with a sense of community responsibility or with a pure profit motivation.